Bob Cole Divisional Quarterfinals: Philadelphia vs. Winnipeg

Phil Housley's sham of a Norris record is well known. It looks phenomenal on paper, but is based entirely on hockey card stats. I probably would not be comfortable with him on a 2nd pairing in a 32 team ATD.

It seems a bit disingenuous to hold up voting records as a definitive source for defence quality and then throw it out when it doesn't correspond to how it seems a player should be remembered. I'm not saying Housley is anything other than a great offensive player who played questionable defence, but that the voters were aware of that and still valued him highly (although I lean more towards voters having questionable judgement than Housley being ranked highly). Housley's a luxury good and I'd expect Shore or McDonald to double shift late in games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord

I do know that in his last few NHL years he was shuttled back and forth and it's impossible to call him one or the other.

That's how it seems to me when I look through Google Archives. He doesn't seem to particularly excel at one or the other so I don't see why he isn't a legit player at either position.

It seems a bit disingenuous to hold up voting records as a definitive source for defence quality and then throw it out when it doesn't correspond to how it seems a player should be remembered. I'm not saying Housley is anything other than a great offensive player who played questionable defence, but that the voters were aware of that and still valued him highly.

Housley is a hard player to judge because he played at a time when a lot of writers really did treat the Norris as an Art Ross for defensemen. I'm definitely an anti-Housley poster here - it really was the case that he was only a top pairing guy on terrible teams and that any team that was close to contender would have to insulate him in real life, let alone the ATD.

That said, on an "all time" list, he has to rank over Leo Reise. If used properly, Housley definitely contributed for a long time and we were reminded this draft of just how short Reise's period of relevance was.

This is making no judgement as to who is better for his role in this series

When Phil Housley was used as a #1 or #2 defenseman at ES, this is how his teams faired:

1987: #2 ES, Didn't make playoffs, 14th of 21 teams in goals against
1988: #1 ES, Lost in first round of playoffs, 12th of 21 teams in goals against
1990: #1 ES, Lost in first round of playoffs, 3rd of 21 teams in goals against
1991: #1 ES, Didn't make playoffs, 15th of 21 teams in goals against
1992: #2 ES, Lost in first round of playoffs, 3rd of 22 teams in goals against
1993: #1 ES, Lost in first round of playoffs, 18th of 24 teams in goals against
1995: #1 ES, Lost in first round of playoffs, 11th of 26 teams in goals against
1996: #1 ES for Calgary before being traded to Devils, Calgary Lost in first round of playoffs and Devils didn't make it, Calgary was 8th of 26 teams in goals against and the Devils were 2nd(played 59 and 22 games respectively)

So, on average, when Phil Housley was a top pairing defenseman at even strength, his team's defense was pretty average except for two strong years. And his teams never had any success in the playoffs with him playing heavy minutes at even strength. I got criticized last year for trying to use Gonchar's voting record to support him, and I think Housley should be criticized just as much. In Housley's two years in Washington, he actually got LESS even strength time than Sergei Gonchar. Mind you, that's not prime offense Sergei Gonchar, that's 96-97 and 97-98 Sergei Gonchar in his 3rd and 4th NHL seasons when his defense was still quite rough. And the coach trusted him more at ES than Housley.

Lindy Ruff is admittedly one of the worst coaches in the ATD. But, I'm fine with that because he's not going to be doing much except for being a motivator. And being a motivator is what he does best.

Gorman is definitely a better coach. He's had success in winning two cups. I'm not sure exactly what his style is, and how conducive it is to Winnipeg's talent. Looking at his bio, I don't really see much about how he liked to coach, or the style that his teams played. From what I gather, he was a guy that was a really good motivator, and guys liked to play for him. I don't see much about aggressive his teams were, or if he liked to match lines. If someone could provide some more information about him as a coach, I think I could make a better evaluation.

Winnipeg has a default advantage in coaching. I waited so long to take a coach for a reason. Philadelphia's not going to be matching lines, so Ruff can do what he does best, be a motivator and make sure his guys are playing hard.

Tommy Gorman basically coached an early version of the Trap. His teams usually allowed very few goals but also scored very few (though some of that is because he rarely had offensive talent to coach).

In that case, I don't really see a roster of forwards that is very conducive to a trapping system. The first line is good, but the 2nd and 4th lines would struggle to implement a trap with any level of effectiveness.

In that case, I don't really see a roster of forwards that is very conducive to a trapping system. The first line is good, but the 2nd and 4th lines would struggle to implement a trap with any level of effectiveness.

i think they would be fine in a trap. olmstead played for defensive minded TML. hunter was a 2 way player. boucher and malone played in an era where passive defensive play was very common.

i would have the most doubts about the 3rd line. but i think the trap is fairly easy to implement.

horner and especially shore were aggressive offensively, and i think generally played for offensive teams. housley was of course much more offensive minded.

but i think the main effect would be that they would score less, not that they would not be effective in a trap or similar system.

Sorry for not being around, been pretty busy, but whatever. Good luck Billy.

Without reading the thirty or so posts that Billy has made, I think at first glance our advantages are behind the bench, on D, and in team toughness. I'll admit that Philly has better "firepower" on offense, and a better goalie, though. While it's tough to intimidate a team with Gordie Howe, the rest of the roster seems to be pretty soft. This is something that I hope our team exposes.

I think a lot of focus is on forward line matchups; I'm more interested in defenseman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721

I probably would not be comfortable with him on a 2nd pairing in a 32 team ATD.

You do realize Leo Boivin is on your top pairing, right? I can't fathom how you can be comfortable giving him top minutes while wanting to shelter Housley on a third pairing. You also feature the defensive abilities of Reed Larson in your top-6...

Sorry for not being around, been pretty busy, but whatever. Good luck Billy.

Without reading the thirty or so posts that Billy has made, I think at first glance our advantages are behind the bench, on D, and in team toughness. I'll admit that Philly has better "firepower" on offense, and a better goalie, though. While it's tough to intimidate a team with Gordie Howe, the rest of the roster seems to be pretty soft. This is something that I hope our team exposes.

Soft? Moore was known as a tenacious player to play against, a power forward in every sense of the word except size, Graves was the bodyguard for Messier and a good two-way power forward, Stanfield was physical when he needed to be, and Fleming was a premier agitator that didn't back down from anyone. On defense, all 6 of my defensemen have some physical ability.

Salming:

Quote:

Salming showed his immense skill but it was his willingness to play the rough North American style that had convince the Leafs to take the chance. It turned out to be one of the best risks ever taken.

Time and time again Salming was tested by the NHL's toughest players, especially the Philadelphia Flyers gang of Broad Street Bullies. xxx and xxx laid beatings on him after jumping him in a fight, but Salming held his own. Not only did he stand up for himself, but he was able to dish out a few vicious shots himself. He earned the respect of the Flyers, especially their leader, Bobby Clarke.

"He was tough." admitted Clarke. "And he could use his stick too."

displayed a gritty style of hockey that opened the eyes of Leafs scout Gerry McNamara. Toronto decided to sign Salming following a tour of Europe by the Barrie Flyers. He was signed because of his unwillingness to back down and his scrappy style of play.

Boivin:

Quote:

In fact Tim Horton himself claimed that Boivin was the toughest defenseman to beat in the entire league. This is somewhat amazing considering "Fireplug" stood only 5'8" tall and weighed anywhere from 170-185 pounds

He has also been called the last of the toothrattling body checkers.

a very heavy hitter who was also an excellent defender.

the best body checker of the 1950s and 1960s. Built like a fireplug, Boivin could deliver a devastating hip check

the premier body checker of his era. Tim Horton, one of the most powerful players in hockey, rated Boivin as the toughest defenseman in the league to beat, while Boston GM Lynn Patrick compared his style to that of Eddie Shore. Like Shore, Boivin sometimes would knock down opponents who attempted to stop his rushes.

could deal terrific body checks. He was generally recognized as about the best of all time, and the fans at the Boston Garden loved him.

one of the cleanest and hardest-hitting bodycheckers in hockey history

Goodfellow:

Quote:

Goodfellow, long known as "the best one punch fighter in hockey's history," takes command as the Detroiters against seek to seize the elusive fourth victory to close out the series with the Leafs.

Big Ebbie Goodfellow, the blond Ottawan with the winning smile, shattering body check and world of speed

Ebbie Goodfellow, whose idea of tact in a hockey game was to skate up to an opponent and knock him flat...

He was a hard-nosed player

Reise:

Quote:

I was a hitter. I used to look for people with their head down so I could mail them. So, when they were on the ice, they were looking for me, "is Reise on the ice?" That was a big part of my game, to make sure they remember I'm on the ice.

The younger Reise was a defenseman, and a much-feared one at that...

he made the Second All-Star Team twice with clean, hard-hitting defense. "A rough, tough customer who packs 211 pounds onto a rangy, six-foot frame, Reise has forcibly left the stamp of his improvement all around the NHL

Reise emerged as a thudding bodychecker who played his position like a general operating on the battlefield

A stay-at-home defenseman known for his fierce bodychecks

Larson:

Quote:

A tough, offensive defenseman

“He broke a lot of sticks and a lot of ankles and everything else. He was a tough kid who had a little mean streak in him. He proved that right away his first year.”

The loss of Reed Larson's toughness, character, and explosive shot from the point was too much for the Gophers.

Smith:

Quote:

a key member to a Bruins team that everyone feared to play

one of the toughest defensemen in the league, both physically and ability wise

Smith was regarded as one of the strongest men in the League.

There is no shortage of toughness on my blueline.

I think a lot of focus is on forward line matchups; I'm more interested in defenseman.

Quote:

You do realize Leo Boivin is on your top pairing, right? I can't fathom how you can be comfortable giving him top minutes while wanting to shelter Housley on a third pairing. You also feature the defensive abilities of Reed Larson in your top-6...

I'm well aware. He's a strong stay at home defenseman that is a tenacious hitter. Is he a strength on the first pairing? Certainly not. He's my 4th best defenseman. But, I like to balance my first and second pairings. If I need to, Goodfellow will shift up to play with Salming, leaving Boivin-Reise to be the 2nd pairing. I'm still not sure that he's worse defensively than Horner.

I'd prefer to have Housley on my 3rd pairing because I think that puts him in the best position to succeed. No pressure for him to play defense, he can play offense all he wants and play a lot of PP. See my comments about Housley above. Do you want him facing Babe Dye or Gordie Howe on a consistent basis? I certainly wouldn't. I'm not going to re-type all of my arguments because my rationale for what I said is already found in this thread. You can read them at your convenience.

In that case, I don't really see a roster of forwards that is very conducive to a trapping system.

As long as you have forwards who are willing to buy into the system, you can implement a trap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721

When Phil Housley was used as a #1 or #2 defenseman at ES, this is how his teams faired:

1987: #2 ES, Didn't make playoffs, 14th of 21 teams in goals against
1988: #1 ES, Lost in first round of playoffs, 12th of 21 teams in goals against
1990: #1 ES, Lost in first round of playoffs, 3rd of 21 teams in goals against
1991: #1 ES, Didn't make playoffs, 15th of 21 teams in goals against
1992: #2 ES, Lost in first round of playoffs, 3rd of 22 teams in goals against
1993: #1 ES, Lost in first round of playoffs, 18th of 24 teams in goals against
1995: #1 ES, Lost in first round of playoffs, 11th of 26 teams in goals against
1996: #1 ES for Calgary before being traded to Devils, Calgary Lost in first round of playoffs and Devils didn't make it, Calgary was 8th of 26 teams in goals against and the Devils were 2nd(played 59 and 22 games respectively)

So, on average, when Phil Housley was a top pairing defenseman at even strength, his team's defense was pretty average except for two strong years. And his teams never had any success in the playoffs with him playing heavy minutes at even strength.

There's quite a few other factors than just Housley for those records. He played on mostly average to bad teams with average to bad goaltenders.

Yeah I'm not the biggest fan of that kind of analysis either. Who was his partner? What kind of goaltender was there? What were the expectations for the team going into the season? Too many questions there to simplify it with a simple analysis like that.

Soft? Moore was known as a tenacious player to play against, a power forward in every sense of the word except size, Graves was the bodyguard for Messier and a good two-way power forward, Stanfield was physical when he needed to be, and Fleming was a premier agitator that didn't back down from anyone. On defense, all 6 of my defensemen have some physical ability.

Every player on our team can be described in that way, save for Bondra. There are only a handful of defenseman drafted that aren't considered to be "tough." Hockey players are tough. As far as hits and effective hits, our team is gonna dominate.

Quote:

I'm well aware. He's a strong stay at home defenseman that is a tenacious hitter. Is he a strength on the first pairing? Certainly not. He's my 4th best defenseman. But, I like to balance my first and second pairings. If I need to, Goodfellow will shift up to play with Salming, leaving Boivin-Reise to be the 2nd pairing. I'm still not sure that he's worse defensively than Horner.

I'd prefer to have Housley on my 3rd pairing because I think that puts him in the best position to succeed. No pressure for him to play defense, he can play offense all he wants and play a lot of PP. See my comments about Housley above. Do you want him facing Babe Dye or Gordie Howe on a consistent basis? I certainly wouldn't. I'm not going to re-type all of my arguments because my rationale for what I said is already found in this thread. You can read them at your convenience.

Fair enough. I've read your arguments, but I'm not convinced that your top-4 is anything special. Even if you switch up the pairings to have Goodfellow with Salming, that's merely an average top pairing. Boivin-Reise is a weak second pairing. How you have them is probably the best option, to be honest, but I'm not worried about any of our forward lines being fully shut down by any of those pairings.

Why would Housley face them on a consistent basis? He's on the second pairing, not the first (like Boivin) he doesn't play PK, and has a great partner in Conacher. The defensive liability you are describing seems to more accurately fit a description of Steve Duchesne, a player who is our seventh or eight defenseman. Or else Reed Larson. Who I guess you do have on your third pairing, so that shouldn't be too big an issue as long as Ruff gets the matchups he wants.

Housley is a hard player to judge because he played at a time when a lot of writers really did treat the Norris as an Art Ross for defensemen. I'm definitely an anti-Housley poster here - it really was the case that he was only a top pairing guy on terrible teams and that any team that was close to contender would have to insulate him in real life, let alone the ATD.

That said, on an "all time" list, he has to rank over Leo Reise. If used properly, Housley definitely contributed for a long time and we were reminded this draft of just how short Reise's period of relevance was.

This is making no judgement as to who is better for his role in this series

I think Housley and Gonchar are kind of special cases in terms of what their AST voting means. The AST voting results are only one statistical indicator of a player's performance. It is probably the most important indicator, but it is not the beginning and end of the picture we have of these defensemen. Other factors, like ESGA, overall icetime, ES icetime, team strength/success/exposure, team role (was he a #1 on his own team), etc. all play a role in our evaluations. In the specific case of Gonchar and Housley, most of these factors do not paint the players in a good light, and so we must temper the value we assign to their AST voting with the other information we have.

The mistake we made in the past was that we applied this critique of Housley and Gonchar to all post-expansion offensive defensemen, irrespective of specific facts of their respective careers.

Kariya>Olmstead, Malone>Nieuwendyk, Howe>Fleury. The Philadelphia forwards have more offensive firepower than their Winnipeg counterparts.

The defensemen are definitely closer. I had a Vs2 comparison between Salming and Conacher, and it ended up Conacher had like 721 total and Salming around 675 I think. In a study like that that is biased towards Conacher's era because of competition and league size, the fact that Salming was close to him shows that Salming as the better offensive player. I also adjusted Conacher's adjusted PPG for games played, and he came out to .547 over 900 games, and Salming was at .577 over 1,148 games. Advantage Salming.

Housley is a better offensive player than Larson. But, one thing to consider is that Larson outscored Housley at ES at their respective peaks. But, Larson's PP offense was significantly worse. I think this was because Larson was able to use his rushing ability to catch teams off guard at ES. But on the PP, he was far and away Detroit's best(and really only) weapon. PK units then keyed on him to take away his booming shot from the point, and Detroit didn't have the skill to pick apart the PK at other spots. Larson has the best point shot of any of these pointmen.

Overall, Philadelphia has an advantage on the first PP units because of superior firepower at forward.

Primeau peaked higher with the first, second, and tied for 4th best seasons, but Kennedy's longevity gets the advantage here. One thing to remember is that Kennedy did all of this during and right after WWII, which makes the numbers look less impressive than they actually are.

I'm not going to waste my time doing a Vs2 between Dye and Tocchet because they played in such vastly different areas. Dye is significantly better offensively.

Goodfellow and Shore isn't a contest, Shore is the better defenseman offensively. Ebbie is a solid 2nd pairing PPQB, but Shore is better. Stanfield and Bondra will require closer examination because they are both forwards playing point on the power play. I know for sure Stanfield had a great deal of success doing this, but I don't see anything in Bondra's bio indicating that he played point on the power play. Stanfield averaged 20.9 PPP per 82 games over his career. Bondra averaged 21.32 per 82 games over his career. Considering Stanfield had an arsenal of weapons at his disposal on the Bruins' PP, Bondra definitely gets the advantage as the better "PP producer". But, I'm going to reserve judgement as to who is a better pointman on the PP until I see proof that Bondra actually did it.

Philadelphia has the advantage in forwards, and Winnipeg is likely going to have the advantage in pointmen. Even if Bondra never played the point, the gap between Shore and Goodfellow is much larger, tipping the pointmen in favor of Winnipeg on the 2nd PP units. I'm not sure how to call this one. I think if there is proof that Bondra played the point on the PP, then a slight advantage will go to Winnipeg. If it's found that he isn't, then I think Stanfield will be the better PP pointman considering he actually did it, giving Philadelphia an advantage.

Fair enough. I've read your arguments, but I'm not convinced that your top-4 is anything special. Even if you switch up the pairings to have Goodfellow with Salming, that's merely an average top pairing. Boivin-Reise is a weak second pairing. How you have them is probably the best option, to be honest, but I'm not worried about any of our forward lines being fully shut down by any of those pairings.

I'll admit my top 4 isn't the strength of my team. The strength of my team is offense, through and through. Overall, my top 4 is pretty average. But, I tried to make up for it by them being all able to move the puck to my forwards, fueling the strength of my team. They're also physical. Combined with the fact that I've got 2 responsible two-way players on each line, I tried to minimize this weakness. By playing more of a puck possession game, my forwards will hopefully minimize time spent in our own defensive zone. My team is basically built around the concept of "the best defense is a great offense." The forwards will be dictating the play in the offensive zone, meaning less time in our defensive zone.

Quote:

Why would Housley face them on a consistent basis? He's on the second pairing, not the first (like Boivin) he doesn't play PK, and has a great partner in Conacher. The defensive liability you are describing seems to more accurately fit a description of Steve Duchesne, a player who is our seventh or eight defenseman. Or else Reed Larson. Who I guess you do have on your third pairing, so that shouldn't be too big an issue as long as Ruff gets the matchups he wants.

Don't the top 4 defensemen generally play against the top 6 forwards on the other team?

The defensemen are definitely closer. I had a Vs2 comparison between Salming and Conacher, and it ended up Conacher had like 721 total and Salming around 675 I think. In a study like that that is biased towards Conacher's era because of competition and league size, the fact that Salming was close to him shows that Salming as the better offensive player. I also adjusted Conacher's adjusted PPG for games played, and he came out to .547 over 900 games, and Salming was at .577 over 1,148 games. Advantage Salming.

I'm not sure I buy this logic.

Also, Eddie Shore would probably be the best PP QB in this series - no idea why he's on a second PP

Also, Eddie Shore would probably be the best PP QB in this series - no idea why he's on a second PP

Defenseman scoring was significantly more compressed back then. The 10th place defenseman was often not very far behind the leaders in scoring, whereas in Salming's era, the elite defenseman scorers were much farther ahead of the pack, making the percentages of the guys behind them look much impressive because they were able to distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack as to how much better offensively they actually were. Wouldn't factoring in era alone into those Vs2 percentages make Salming's look more impressive? The league was 3x as big than the one Conacher played in.

I don't see anything in Kennedy's bio that said he killed penalties. As a good defensive player he should be decent at it, but for guys on my first unit, I'd prefer that they have documented PK ability. Bailey, on the other hand, is a strong PKer with a known track record. Primeau and Fleming are both documented as being strong penalty killers and two-way players, so I think Philadelphia's forwards are a bit better on the PK here. In terms of defensemen, Shore and Horner will be hell in front of the net and in the corners. They're a better defensive pair than Salming and Smith. But again, Shore and Horner are going to be spending a good amount of time in the box and may run around looking for the big hit, taking themselves out of position. An advantage here probably goes to Winnipeg because the gap between the defensemen is larger than the gap between forwards.

PK2

Fleury, Graves, and Linden are all guys that played in mostly the same era, and all killed a decent amount of penalties. I think they're about the same in general. Weiland was known as a very strong PKer in his day, so I guess that gives Winnipeg a small advantage there. Goodfellow and Conacher are basically a wash as discussed before, but Reise is definitely better than McDonald. Reise has what McDonald has(a 2nd team all star), plus another one and two AS game appearances. Overall, these units look like pretty much a wash.

PK3

Neither of Bondra or Hunter killed penalties on a consistent basis throughout their career. Then again, I don't think Moore or Howe really did either. Looking at Bondra's impressive SHG totals and then his PPGA totals, I think this is precisely the role he played in real life. Throw him on towards the end of the penalty kill, and he'd use his speed to burn tired forwards and defensemen on the penalty kill for shorthanded goals. Defensemen are an advantage to Winnipeg because they have Eddie Shore.

Bondra, who played the point on the power play in Washington, is earning $4.5 million US this season.

Shore is on the second unit so we could maximize Housley's effectiveness by having him on the first unit. And even though Bondra is a legitmate PP pointman, we felt more comfortable having Shore cover for him than Conacher. Shore alone is also a threat himself on the second unit, which balances the units.

Quote:

Don't the top 4 defensemen generally play against the top 6 forwards on the other team?

You'll never see me argue that. But if Housley is absolutely getting dominated by Howe for example, then we'll stay away from that matchup. There are other options. My point is he doesn't need to be sheltered on a third pairing.

-Superior first and second lines
-Better defensive play from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th lines
-Better fourth line
-Superior goaltending
-Better 2nd and 3rd pairing(depends upon how you look at Housley)
-Better offensive and defensive play overall from forwards
-Winnipeg's forwards cannot match up with the firepower of Philadelphia's right wings. They feature only one good defensive left winger, and 3 others that are average at the very best at the ATD level. For more in-depth information about this: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...3&postcount=41

It isn't hard to account for Kennedy's greatness. A serious, taut young gentleman of 29 (5 feet 11 inches, 180 pounds) with a skating style more notable for strength and maneuverability than for grace, he has the color that makes Yogi Berra great in baseball and a team-lifting type of leadership that makes Toronto fans very relieved to see him out there every time the going is tough. In addition to his regular turns at center on his own line, he is used both on the Toronto power play (for scoring punch when the opposition is short-handed due to a penalty) and on penalty-killing duties when the Leafs are short-handed and need their best checkers on the ice. On top of this, as team captain, he argues every arguable decision with referees and is put on the ice every time there is an important face-off, because he is the league's best at getting the draw when the puck is dropped. All in all, a very busy young man.